Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
UL pro life society ???
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 13726
I'd be really curious to see what sort of stuff they'll be doing as a society, events and stuff.
Pro Life table quiz anyone? :P0 -
wnolan1992 wrote: »I'd be really curious to see what sort of stuff they'll be doing as a society, events and stuff.
Pro Life table quiz anyone? :P
I imagine its just a talking shop, with the odd rally hooking up with the 'I own a' Institute and Youth Defence to wander around towns.
I could see it facing problems down the line in terms of sufficient members, a lot of people will be turned off by its content to join, even if they hold similar views, especially if it rubs up people the wrong way through their activities. Issues like this are divisive0 -
IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »must be a really low standard of students these days in UL if they feel so vehemently about a group of like minded people setting up a society.
It's probably just ten of the twenty or so UL students who read boards who are bothered by this.
Ironically enough, some of you should get a life for yourselves and worry about some of the real issues in the world or at least in your University.
If these aren't issues then I don't know what are.0 -
The guy chairing the prospective Pro-Life soc was asking about restricting the membership of the soc if they were ratified, so as to prevent those with a differing viewpoint joining. This was due to what happened in UCC when a similar soc was formed there, where a large number of pro-choice people joined, and then voted the soc out of existence at an AGM.
The prospective soc made their apologies at about 5pm, about an hour before the meeting was due to start, as apparently they had questions that they had that weren't being answered to their satisfaction - mostly answers that clarified the current state of C&S policies that the socs have to abide by.
The information that I've been given by the prospective soc was that their sole aim was "to promote the inherent sanctity of life on campus" - a direct quote from the email that I received from them, I don't think that this fits well with the aims of UL Clubs and Societies. It wasn't stated that the soc was to give common ground to those that have that viewpoint, but to push that viewpoint on others. Out in UL don't try to push others on campus to be gay, but they do provide a great framework and support for those that are gay, and I think that if Paddy McHugh were alive today he wouldn't be appreciative of the comparison between the group he did so much work for being compared to this prospective soc.
As far as I can gather from talking to the other C&S committee members, the prospective soc will not get ratification from C&S council. Not because the prospective soc is Pro-Life, but because the prospective soc is an extremely narrow-focus group that, based on their own communications so far, are not there to allow like-minded people to group together, but are in existence solely to push that viewpoint on others. Everyone I've talked to has said that the exact same would be said of a Pro-Choice group if it were to be attempted to be formed.
No soc has yet been refused ratification by C&S, but this one is likely to set a precedent for this.
Personally I do not see the advantage to C&S of having this narrow-focused group being under the C&S umbrella, especially when this viewpoint is already present within the Christian Union society, who would happily accept students that have a pro-life viewpoint. The committees I am on in C&S will all be voting against the ratification, after discussions with our club and society members, as is our right.0 -
The guy chairing the prospective Pro-Life soc was asking about restricting the membership of the soc if they were ratified, so as to prevent those with a differing viewpoint joining. This was due to what happened in UCC when a similar soc was formed there, where a large number of pro-choice people joined, and then voted the soc out of existence at an AGM.
The prospective soc made their apologies at about 5pm, about an hour before the meeting was due to start, as apparently they had questions that they had that weren't being answered to their satisfaction - mostly answers that clarified the current state of C&S policies that the socs have to abide by.
The information that I've been given by the prospective soc was that their sole aim was "to promote the inherent sanctity of life on campus" - a direct quote from the email that I received from them, I don't think that this fits well with the aims of UL Clubs and Societies. It wasn't stated that the soc was to give common ground to those that have that viewpoint, but to push that viewpoint on others. Out in UL don't try to push others on campus to be gay, but they do provide a great framework and support for those that are gay, and I think that if Paddy McHugh were alive today he wouldn't be appreciative of the comparison between the group he did so much work for being compared to this prospective soc.
As far as I can gather from talking to the other C&S committee members, the prospective soc will not get ratification from C&S council. Not because the prospective soc is Pro-Life, but because the prospective soc is an extremely narrow-focus group that, based on their own communications so far, are not there to allow like-minded people to group together, but are in existence solely to push that viewpoint on others. Everyone I've talked to has said that the exact same would be said of a Pro-Choice group if it were to be attempted to be formed.
No soc has yet been refused ratification by C&S, but this one is likely to set a precedent for this.
Personally I do not see the advantage to C&S of having this narrow-focused group being under the C&S umbrella, especially when this viewpoint is already present within the Christian Union society, who would happily accept students that have a pro-life viewpoint. The committees I am on in C&S will all be voting against the ratification, after discussions with our club and society members, as is our right.
Typical SU scum. Suppose you'll have the gustapo out soon as well for any practicing catholics on campus.
There's a word for what is going on here, it's called tyranny.
Harps back to the days of Cromwell and the Brits, Stalin and Adolf.
Disgrace.
This is UL, not North Korea.
I'd implore you to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 18 - 20 being most pertinent.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.0 -
Advertisement
-
@irishskyboxer - the setting up of a soc is a democratic process, ans as such it's perfectly reasonable that the inclusion into C&S is something that is voted on and as such can be freely and perfectly legally be refused.
If you don't like the fact that people may not appreciate their own rights being infringed by non-peaceful assembly by having opinions stuffed down their throats, then I'm afraid that's an issue that only you can resolve.
Nobody's rights are being infringed here. Don't forget that the University grounds and buildings are not public spaces, with everything that is entailed in that.0 -
LOL IrishSkyBoxer. Way to misrepresent. Come back when Out in UL are performing straight --> gay conversions.0
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 13726
Heh, all the same, you'd miss a bit of a ruckus around here. :P0 -
IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »Typical SU scum. Suppose you'll have the gustapo out soon as well for any practicing catholics on campus.
There's a word for what is going on here, it's called tyranny.
Harps back to the days of Cromwell and the Brits, Stalin and Adolf.
Disgrace.
[/I]
I personally take offence to you tarnishing Cromwell's reputation there when the man was a staunch Christian who stood up for his beliefs in a troubled time. Excellent general as well, showed those upstart cavaliers what for!
For shame IrishSkyBoxer, that sort of narrow-mindedness cost Caesar the popular vote on the Ides of March.
Actually do you go to UL or are you a travelling troubadour who ventures forth to defend the voiceless?0 -
Advertisement
-
wnolan1992 wrote: »Heh, all the same, you'd miss a bit of a ruckus around here. :P
I was enjoying the peace0 -
The issue with these guys is that it looks like they're trying to gain exemptions from the membership rules which every club and society sign up to and continue to abide by when they come under the ULSU banner. The reasoning behind their seeking of these exemptions appears to be so that they can control who is a member and who is not.
It's a condition of forming a club or society that membership must be open to any student or staff member of the university who wishes to join. The only exemptions that might be allowed to exist are for health and safety reasons (I'm not aware of any exemptions currently but this is the only sane reason I can imagine for allowing this). Memberships can be revoked or refused at renewal for discipline reasons, but that's a separate issue.
No one is stopping these guys from meeting if they want to do so. They have the right, as pointed out, to associate freely. What a no-vote from C&S council will mean (if it happens) is that that council is not willing to accept the organisation within its umbrella, and will likely be driven by these guys' desire to have their own rules (like so many more religious organisations).
UL Life will have been made very aware of the rules of C&S before requesting to join. These rules are created by the C&S council and executive and adopted by those bodies - it's not some evil overlord in a dark office drawing up all this stuff and imposing it on the world. It's the governance that C&S have chosen for themselves. If UL Life fail because they want to be selective in their adoption of those rules, it's their own tough luck.
Before I became aware of the issues they had with the rules, I was willing to give these guys a chance to have their trial period (I have a vote on C&S council fwiw) but if they want to play by their own rules because the ones we have don't suit them then I'll be voting no.0 -
The guy chairing the prospective Pro-Life soc was asking about restricting the membership of the soc if they were ratified, so as to prevent those with a differing viewpoint joining. This was due to what happened in UCC when a similar soc was formed there, where a large number of pro-choice people joined, and then voted the soc out of existence at an AGM.
Certainly not the first person to ask for selective membership and certainly not the last.
Also sounds similar to my plan for a pro-life society that went too far.No soc has yet been refused ratification by C&S, but this one is likely to set a precedent for this.
And why should a society be refused ratification? If they don't adhere to the C&S guidelines, they can't go to council. If they do, they meet all C&S guidelines and have been reviewed by the C&S exec to not be a duplicate/illegal. This isn't ratification (and it shouldn't be), it is actually just a few points about what they intend to do (so other C&S know why a new club/society are taking money, resources, etc.). How is one/two people meant to reflect the view point of an entire committee/membership about a committee from a 5 second speech? Especially when they haven't seen the documents they have given to the CS exec and that they would be going on a 15 week trial.
A narrow-scope? Define narrow scope for a C&S. Out in UL's scope is vague*; Chess's scope is too specific*.
*Not picking on any C&S.The information that I've been given by the prospective soc was that their sole aim was "to promote the inherent sanctity of life on campus" - a direct quote from the email that I received from them, I don't think that this fits well with the aims of UL Clubs and Societies. It wasn't stated that the soc was to give common ground to those that have that viewpoint, but to push that viewpoint on others. Out in UL don't try to push others on campus to be gay, but they do provide a great framework and support for those that are gay, and I think that if Paddy McHugh were alive today he wouldn't be appreciative of the comparison between the group he did so much work for being compared to this prospective soc.
ok 3 things; A. you haven't mentioned any facts except repeating what is an established aim for them. Socities have many aims and promoting could be guest lectures or it could be handing out flyers. All of which are fine.
Poker have handed out flyers to non-poker people, offered free games for people to play in. Cumann Gaelach's constitution is "To Promote the Use of the Irish Language in UL". They are promoting poker/Irish on campus but when you replace poker/Irish with pro-life a problem exists? Seems kinda strange to me!
B. If you are going to say Paddy McHugh wouldn't be appreciative of the comparison, why do you do it yourself? I didn't know Paddy but, if he is like the people in Out in UL or C&S people I have met, he would be supportive of a new group and people with different ideas and beliefs. He wouldn't rush to judge people and he would be insulted that his good work can't be a standard for others to follow. Why can't the life society provide great framework and support for people who are pregnant and want to keep it but are having doubts about money, educations, etc.?
C. What's the difference between Cumann Gaelach and life society? They both want to promote something on campus and have a similar scope in their aims.From the C&S website wrote:UL Life Society exists to promote the inherent dignity and sanctity of human life. This is currently focussed primarily on defence of the unborn. Come join us to voice your support of human life! We seek to do the following on campus: • Promote the inherent dignity and sanctity of human life • Increase awareness and provide information on issues involved in the dignity and sanctity of human life • Engage in a relevant manner UL students, the UL campus community and allied and clustered higher education campuses on life issues, such as abortion and euthanasia. We do this using: • public lectures, talks, and debates, which will include invited prestigious speakers • poster and leaflet, and similar, information campaigns • Promote civic involvement and participation in greater public ‘Life’ related events • Network, co-operate and collaborate with similar societies in other third level institutions0 -
Well it seems its all a moot point now. Democracy had it's say.
UL Life's proposal was beaten in a narrow 21-22 vote for ratification at C/S council tonight. First time a proposal for a new club/society has been denied I think. Some interesting points made from all.0 -
-
Well it seems its all a moot point now. Democracy had it's say.
UL Life's proposal was beaten in a narrow 21-22 vote for ratification at C/S council tonight. First time a proposal for a new club/society has been denied I think. Some interesting points made from all.
To put in a bit more of a context:
This society had been approved by the executive and went to council.
This society gave a brief summary of what they do. They have invited guest speakers to talk resulting in 1 event per semester (it took a year to go through exec). They have run 2 events over the last year where they have invited guest speakers to talk; a lecturer from Trinity and some other person.
The floor was open then to questions. The only question that was sensible was from Triona which outlined that this is a sensitive topic and asked a related question (I can't fully remember it). The biggest joke of a question was "why didn't you call yourselves the pro-life society?". Very few relevant points were made.
As per usual objections were invited from the floor. 2 people objected (their objections weren't listed/mentioned/said).
Then, unusually, it was put to a vote to ratify them (a process that was NOT ever used over the last 7 years). So either A. Every C&S in the last 7 years that has been set up is invalid and must go for re-ratification or B. This was a clear blatant discrimination against people who share a different view point to others.
22 voted against while 21 voted for. To put that in perspective 22 people voted against this society on behalf of their Clubs and Societies (I have yet to hear any rational reason why a club or society would reject this society from going on a 15 week trial). What makes this more worrying is 20 of those votes didn't have any objections to them being set up, so it was only a clash of ideals.
Embarrassing for C&S really. Makes a mockery out of everything C&S stands for. You not only have to follow all the guidelines and rules to set up but you have to be popular and ensure no one has any prejudices against you. Every C&S has to be open to everyone but C&S isn't open to everyone.0 -
Its a shame CNS always prided itself on welcoming everyone yet going by Reunion post, which I would put a lot of a credibility behind, it seem certain members ganged up to attack a new society due to difference view points. It think it is an absolute joke that 20 people got to vote against it without providing a reason.0
-
How many clubs and societies are there in total?
If only 43 voted, must have been a lot of abstentions.
Just to be advocatus diabolis though since you've twisted some things:
In actuality though, there were 3 objections and then it went to the vote. Does every club and society have to stand up and give their objection before they're allowed vote?
Only one sensible question? Emma and Paddy also made queries about it being a sensitive topic and Thomas from Out In UL did ask as to whether there was any outside affiliations. Questions about the proposed societies activities were also quite pertinent.
I believe some relevant points were made, especially in regard to the number of members the society holds and how many of those were students. Considering a vague round number was given about both, it was a fair one. Their speaker Manuel said "o we've around 20-25 members" and that he wasn't sure but "15-20 were students".
Did it perhaps go to a vote because there were objections? In your last seven years, was there ever an objection given to the formation of any of the newer clubs and societies like Threads, Parkour or Poker for example? If there was, it would have gone to a vote then surely? When has there last been an objection to a new club or society set up? Paul mentioned issues over the forming of Sinn Féin several years before.
Did the 21 in favour have to give a reason for their vote in ratifying the society?
The joy of subjectivity, we both observed different things from the same meeting which is the beauty of human fallibility. Maybe some of them were wrong when they voted against when they had no rational objection and were perhaps discriminatory and prejudicial in their actions but how do you prove that? As was brought up at the meeting, its a sensitive issue and you don't know peoples backgrounds. And I would also assume that anyone who voted had the backing of their committee on their decision.
@Jester 252 I personally didn't witness any "ganging up", particularly when the individual who asked "why don't you call yourself the Pro-Life Society?" was actually one who voted in favour of them at the end. There was no attacking and I was happy to see everyone was dignified and respectful during the process with no one trying to make a scene out of it or embarrass the two members from the prospective society at the front.
C'est la vie, the vote happened, the majority had their say. If you are morally troubled about it and feel its making a mockery out of C/S then I recommend contacting the appropriate authorities within the university or SU to express your concerns. Keyboard duelling on Boards may soothe the conscience but it won't aid UL Life.0 -
My two cents on this:
I'm still torn over the creation of societies like this. Not over their sensitive nature - not in the slighest - people leave too many topics to the side in some debates because they are 'sensitive' and really they are probably the most important ones we should be having. My issue in effect is that it is a society created around a single issue (granted in this case euthanasia was included also, I know originally that never was).
Should there really be the opportunity for a society to be created over any single issue that is out there? That is the question I've been asking myself with regards this. Should there be a pro-life society, pro-choice society, pro-gay marriage, pro-traditional marriage, pro-marijuana legalization society, anti-marijuana legalization. That is in effect the precedent that was being set if they did go forward.
They are all in effect some very important debates that have been in the media recently worldwide (the list could go on) - but I am not sure Clubs & Societies, through a Students' Union is the best format or structure for them to be created in. I'm not sure if that makes sense (it does in my head at least), or even if there is an alternative structure by which they could be created/supported to carry out these debates.Then, unusually, it was put to a vote to ratify them (a process that was NOT ever used over the last 7 years).
As memory serves myself, I don't think there was ever any other Club or Society that has gone forward while I have been here that there has actually been an objection to (could be wrong on this). Therefore it is taken that no vote needs to be had. Might be worth reviewing the policy/process, but if there were objections it makes sense to me to have a vote.
I would like to think it didn't come down to a clash of ideals, because it shouldn't. If I still had a vote through my Club/opportunity to speak the objection I would have put forward is what I have detailed above, which is my genuine concern going forward for C&S.0 -
Ginge Young wrote: »Should there be a pro-life society, pro-choice society, pro-gay marriage, pro-traditional marriage, pro-marijuana legalization society, anti-marijuana legalization. That is in effect the precedent that was being set if they did go forward.
Pro-tea society? pro-Fianna Fail society?
To answer your question, yes, there can be.Ginge Young wrote: »I would like to think it didn't come down to a clash of ideals, because it shouldn't. If I still had a vote through my Club/opportunity to speak the objection I would have put forward is what I have detailed above, which is my genuine concern going forward for C&S.
I do understand your point and it can be ridiculous I agree. It would have been great if those types of questions were asked at council; sadly that wasn't even close to the questions asked at council.
Actually, can someone find the definition of a society? (hint: it's in this pdf)
I don't mean to sound like an ahole (I slightly am, I won't lie) but you defined what a society is and said that is why you would have voted no to them...
Sounds more like you want a rewording of what a society IS rather than anything wrong with that particular society.0 -
Advertisement
-
Pro-tea society? pro-Fianna Fail society?
Sounds more like you want a rewording of what a society IS rather than anything wrong with that particular society.
I figured that would come up. I suppose the distinction here is I guess I feel that when it comes to singular "Issues" and I use that term lightly, I don't know if they should be included as a society in the current structure of Clubs & Societies.
I never once said they are not a society by definition, I don't remember providing an exact definition or disputing that in my post in the grander scheme of things. They are of course a group of people with similar interest that happen to push a certain idea/stance on an issue, but I just don't feel that a society should be created in the current C&S structure whose purpose is to advance debate (on either side) of a singular topical issue.
If I look at the list of the societies right now, most of them are interests in specific things, or a groups that by definition may have a stance on multiple/variety of issues just by what they are involved in (politics/religion etc).
The current definition is:
"Societies are formed for a specific purpose, namely to campaign a certain ideal. Societies are seen as gathering places for cultural and/or intellectual advancement of institution members."
But when I look at societies in the context of UL Clubs and Societies, the majority of them are much more than campaigning an ideal (particularly in a singular context). So maybe it would be worthwhile to review what a society is in the context of UL Clubs & Societies. That is what discussions/debate are for afterall!
Like I said, just in the current structure of C&S and what they do, I'm just not convinced that C&S is the right fit for a group of people that want to push a single opinion on a single issue (whatever side of the argument). I'm open to being convinced though. Like I said, this would have been the issue I would like discussed and why I would have made an objection - because I just don't know.0 -
@Jester 252 I personally didn't witness any "ganging up", particularly when the individual who asked "why don't you call yourself the Pro-Life Society?" was actually one who voted in favour of them at the end. There was no attacking and I was happy to see everyone was dignified and respectful during the process with no one trying to make a scene out of it or embarrass the two members from the prospective society at the front.
So only 2/3 people objected to them becoming a society yet 22 people voted against them. The other 20/19 had no objection to them becoming a society, why did they vote against them?
As for ganging up many people voted no because they disagreed with the society message. Evidence of that can be found in posts on this thread made by other CNS member. Its good to see that an organisation that prides itself to being open to everyone, shut its door to people who taught different.0 -
I would have a number of issues with it becoming a society. A society is part of the Students Union which represents all students, granted it is a single branch of a much larger entity, however it is still a part of it. By having a society of this nature could be perceived as the C&S council having a pro-life agenda which would make it a difficult place for someone to go to if they happen to have gone through having an abortion. C&S council would have ratified a society that essentially disagrees with their beliefs and ostracises them as people.
You also open up the possibility of events on campus which could make the campus an unwelcoming place for a student that has had to have an abortion. The SU and C&S should strive to be as inclusive as possible, and I don't think it would be possible to be inclusive if they had ratified that soc. I realise that by not ratifying the soc you may perceive it as being excluded, however I would argue that by making this decision does not make any member of that group feel unwelcome/uncomfortable on campus, whereas the alternative decision would have.
There could also be the argument that they would just be having one or two speakers a year so how would that make anyone feel uncomfortable or unwanted? The answer to that would be that societies change and grow, they become more adventurous wanting to expand and hold bigger and better events, trying to outdo previous committees.
I'm not entirely certain that I've made my argument clear, so if it is unclear let me know and I will try to elaborate on the issue.0 -
As for ganging up many people voted no because they disagreed with the society message. Evidence of that can be found in posts on this thread made by other CNS member. Its good to see that an organisation that prides itself to being open to everyone, shut its door to people who taught different.
I was not there. I cannot comment on the reasoning as to why the majority of those individual C&S voted no. If they voted no because they disagreed with their message, I believe that is wrong.
However I would appreciate not tarring the whole organisation with the same brush given that:
1) You cannot be certain all those who are posting here were voting (maybe you can I'm just assuming you can't).
+
2) Not everyone would have voted for those reasons (this I can guarantee as I have spoken to a few reps of different C&S about it).
What this should probably result in is a decent discussion over why people said no/yes, and based off of this explore if anything needs to change in C&S policy itself.
(As a point to add, if some individual C&S voted yes because they agree with their message - who knows maybe they did - that is equally as wrong as those who voted no. So if you are going to say that about those who said no, be prepared to say it about those who said yes).0 -
I would have a number of issues with it becoming a society. A society is part of the Students Union which represents all students, granted it is a single branch of a much larger entity, however it is still a part of it. By having a society of this nature could be perceived as the C&S council having a pro-life agenda which would make it a difficult place for someone to go to if they happen to have gone through having an abortion. C&S council would have ratified a society that essentially disagrees with their beliefs and ostracises them as people.
You also open up the possibility of events on campus which could make the campus an unwelcoming place for a student that has had to have an abortion. The SU and C&S should strive to be as inclusive as possible, and I don't think it would be possible to be inclusive if they had ratified that soc. I realise that by not ratifying the soc you may perceive it as being excluded, however I would argue that by making this decision does not make any member of that group feel unwelcome/uncomfortable on campus, whereas the alternative decision would have.
There could also be the argument that they would just be having one or two speakers a year so how would that make anyone feel uncomfortable or unwanted? The answer to that would be that societies change and grow, they become more adventurous wanting to expand and hold bigger and better events, trying to outdo previous committees.
I'm not entirely certain that I've made my argument clear, so if it is unclear let me know and I will try to elaborate on the issue.
I am very sure there are many clubs and societies in UL that do not represent a large population of the student body so your first point does not make a whole lot of sense to be honest I'm sure a lot of people do not like ogra FF & FG nor do they have the beliefs of the christian union so clubs and socs do not have to cater to everyone I am afraid. And to your second point in bold, to be honest catering clubs and socs to make sure people are not offended or "un welcome" just isn't practical people these days need to realize that while many people may agree with their belief there is also people that do not agree and they are allowed to have their beliefs that is what equality is all about. And by the way I don't really care if the society is set up or not as I have no strong views on pro choice or pro life but I am definitely not a big fan of censorship and believe that everyone should be allowed to express their beliefs or nobody should be, there is no middle ground because that is not true equality.0 -
ZomB13 F1Sh wrote: »I am very sure there are many clubs and societies in UL that do not represent a large population of the student body so your first point does not make a whole lot of sense to be honest I'm sure a lot of people do not like ogra FF & FG nor do they have the beliefs of the christian union so clubs and socs do not have to cater to everyone I am afraid. And to your second point in bold, to be honest catering clubs and socs to make sure people are not offended or "un welcome" just isn't practical people these days need to realize that while many people may agree with their belief there is also people that do not agree and they are allowed to have their beliefs that is what equality is all about. And by the way I don't really care if the society is set up or not as I have no strong views on pro choice or pro life but I am definitely not a big fan of censorship and believe that everyone should be allowed to express their beliefs or nobody should be, there is no middle ground because that is not true equality.
Yes there are many groups that don't represent a large population of the student body, but these groups aren't offensive to anyone. The Christian Union represents people who are of the christian faith, it is not an anti-gay, anti abortion, anti-(insert any number of words here) group. That is not the message they are trying to get across, that is not what their society is about.
I'm a little surprised that you are saying that you are ok with students feeling unwelcome on the campus to be honest. C&S try to welcome and represent everyone. Even those members of the failed Life Soc would not feel unwelcome in the C&S. It was not a personal attack on them. The opposite would be true if they had been ratified.
To be honest I don't care if people are pro-life or pro-choice, that is a personal matter which each person can come to their own decision on. I wouldn't have voted no because I disagree with their views, but I would have voted no because I believe their views would ostracise some students.0 -
So only 2/3 people objected to them becoming a society yet 22 people voted against them. The other 20/19 had no objection to them becoming a society, why did they vote against them?
As for ganging up many people voted no because they disagreed with the society message. Evidence of that can be found in posts on this thread made by other CNS member. Its good to see that an organisation that prides itself to being open to everyone, shut its door to people who taught different.
Well like Ginge said, you can't exactly tar the whole council with it. 43 clubs/societies voted on the issue, so nearly thirty abstained? The 22 who voted against don't even make up a third of the council.
And if it helps, it wasn't a case of count up objections, then put it to a vote. Once the first couple of objections had been made, then it was placed to a vote. Who's to say more would have been made or not. So the other 19 might have had objections, they just weren't raised.
Ginge hit the nail on the head with the reasoning for voting, anyone who voted yay or nay just because of a personal reason (ie disagreeing with the society message) is in the wrong. It would be the same if it was UL Choice proposed. We don't know the reasoning behind why everyone made their vote so painting it as discrimination is just a bit extreme.0 -
Weren't they looking to restrict their membership according to a poster a couple of days ago? If that approach continued I would have voted against, any C&S membership has to be open to those who want to join, not who the club thinks are worthy of it.0
-
Well like Ginge said, you can't exactly tar the whole council with it. 43 clubs/societies voted on the issue, so nearly thirty abstained? The 22 who voted against don't even make up a third of the council.
And if it helps, it wasn't a case of count up objections, then put it to a vote. Once the first couple of objections had been made, then it was placed to a vote. Who's to say more would have been made or not. So the other 19 might have had objections, they just weren't raised.
Ginge hit the nail on the head with the reasoning for voting, anyone who voted yay or nay just because of a personal reason (ie disagreeing with the society message) is in the wrong. It would be the same if it was UL Choice proposed. We don't know the reasoning behind why everyone made their vote so painting it as discrimination is just a bit extreme.
Did CNS, an organisation who prides itself on welcoming people, not turn away a group of students who wanted to be involved?
So did they go around and as every CNS one by one if there was any objections or was the question posted to the floor?
If it was posted to the floor why did only 2/3 people raise their hands when the other 20/19 people where mean to have CNS style objections?
As for "discrimination" I'm just look at the facts. 20/19 voted against it with raising an objection and the "reasons" other poster who claimed, like yourself, to be part of CNS have given.0 -
Advertisement
-
Did CNS, an organisation who prides itself on welcoming people, not turn away a group of students who wanted to be involved?
So did they go around and as every CNS one by one if there was any objections or was the question posted to the floor?
If it was posted to the floor why did only 2/3 people raise their hands when the other 20/19 people where mean to have CNS style objections?
As for "discrimination" I'm just look at the facts. 20/19 voted against it with raising an objection and the "reasons" other poster who claimed, like yourself, to be part of CNS have given.
In fairness, its not fair to say none of them raised an objection. Could easily be one of the three who spoke said what they were going to say and decided not to repeat themselves (which would be first for C&S).0
Advertisement